|English bishops to relax the dress code
Posted: 27 Jul 2018 06:53 AM PDT
In view of the extreme temperatures in London – “nearly as high as the last time it was this hot” – the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales have agreed that priests may relax their dress code – cassocks, chasubles, socks, whatever – for Mass this weekend.
A Jesuit priest models a rainbow leotard.
“If the Marylebone Cricket Club can do it, then why not us?” explained Cardinal Vincent Nichols, as he rummaged through his wardrobe for a scarlet mankini. “We take our faith nearly as seriously as those cricket fans.”
However, there are limits on what priests will be allowed to wear on “Scorcher Sunday.” A request from the archbishop of Great Tobin that he could wear a see-through nighty-nighty was turned down.
Maintaining standards. This priest insists on wearing full dress when he dances.
To get a wider view of the issue, we asked the American bishops their views on stripping off in hot weather. Farrell, Wuerl, Tobin and Cupich were unanimous: “We prefer to cover things up.” What can they mean?
Here is your little dose of satire to help you cope with the amount of covering up for Cardinal McCarrick that some bishops have done.
The Devil has indeed infiltrated the Church and has recruited many useful idiots and fellow-travelers. Souls are being lost every day because they are led astray by worldly shepherds wearing purple garments, wolves in sheeps’ clothing.
Our own bishops are leading an apostasy, but we must remain steadfast
July 27, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The heart of the current apostasy unfolding in the Catholic Church may be stated thus: the Bride of Christ has forsaken her Bridegroom for another lover, the World. Of course, the Bride of Christ in her perfection, the Church Triumphant in heaven, can never be unfaithful, nor can the souls already saved but in need of purification, the Church Suffering in purgatory. We are speaking of the Church Militant on earth—and not, obviously, all Catholics, but far too many, especially in the hierarchy. We can see this in an unrelenting flood of bad news that hovers around bishops and cardinals.
We see the abandonment of Christ for the World in the sex abuse scandal surrounding Cardinal McCarrick, predator extraordinaire, and in the ranks of senior clergy who knew about his sinful behavior but refused to do anything about it, even joining in with his hypocrisy. The reaction to the stunning disclosures has been underwhelming, which supports the inference that the McCarrick problem is just the tip of the iceberg.
We see it in the episcopal non-reaction to the 15 “Catholic” senators who refused to vote against late-term abortions that inflict horrible pain on babies before depriving them of life. Senator Schumer of New York high-fived the “Catholic” senator from North Dakota, rejoicing that the slaughter will continue. Satan smiled on that one. Silence from the bishops. You can bet that if those 15 senators voted against a “comprehensive immigration reform” bill, the bishops would have immediately called them on the carpet for their cruelty towards the poor.
We see it in Cardinal Cupich’s warm welcome to Fr. James Martin, bridge-builder for sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance, and his cold war against Fr C. Frank Phillips, founder of the Canons Regular of St John Cantius.
We see it in the support given by the same Cupich, together with Archbishop Gregory, Bishop McElroy, and Bishop Wester, to the openly heretical “Association of United States Catholic Priests” (AUSCP), based in Cleveland, Ohio—a clerical version of Call to Action. In any normal situation, all the members of this association and its patrons would have been excommunicated and told to do penance on bread and water until reconciliation might be possible.
We see it in the utter lack of seriousness with which the bishops and clergy of Ireland prepared their people for the fateful referendum on abortion, as a result of which, for the first time ever, a nation democratically turned against the unborn and declared open hunting season on its own children. Efforts to speak the truth in love and unmask the abortionist propaganda were almost solely the work of laity supported with private funds.
We see it in the Vatican “deal” with Communist China, by which the persecuted faithful children of the Church have been betrayed. (Interesting how nobody who lives under Communism ever favors such rapprochements—just the Communist agents in the clergy, like Bishop Sorondo, who said “Right now, those who are best implementing the social doctrine of the Church are the Chinese.”)
We see it in Cardinal Marx and his allies, who receive no rebuke when they violate all that is most sacred, giving the Holy Eucharist to adulterers and non-Catholics, and plundering monasteries for their property. Meanwhile, the good and faithful servant Cardinal Sarah is swiftly rebuked if he dares to recommend the celebration of Mass ad orientem—a practice all Catholics had followed for nearly 2,000 years, and one that has, in any case, always been permissible with the new liturgical books.
One could, alas, go on and on. The deafening silence of many among our shepherds, their complicity with evil, their outright espousal of errors, is the great burden we are being asked to bear today in the Church. It is quite like the situation in Henry VIII’s England, when most of the bishops were cowards who went along with the status quo and the holders of power. St. John Fisher stood out, almost alone, for his unyielding fidelity.
As Pope Paul VI recognized in his famous homily on June 29, 1972, “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” The Devil has indeed infiltrated the Church and has recruited many useful idiots and fellow-travelers. Souls are being lost every day because they are led astray by worldly shepherds, wolves in sheeps’ clothing.
In the sixteenth century, a nun in Quito, Ecuador, Mariana Francisca de Jesus Torres y Berriochoa, received visions of Our Lady of Good Success, subsequently approved by the Church, in which the Holy Mother of God spoke many prophesies of future times. This one in particular stands out:
During this unfortunate epoch, injustice will even enter here [into the Church], my closed garden. Disguised under the name of false charity, it will wreak havoc in souls. The spiteful demon will try to sow discord, making use of putrid members, who, masked by the appearance of virtue, will be like decaying sepulchers emanating the pestilence of putrefaction, causing moral deaths in some and lukewarmness in others. … How the Church will suffer on that occasion the dark night of the lack of a Prelate and Father to watch over them with paternal love, gentleness, strength, and prudence!
Can any honest Catholic deny that we are living through the exact times of which Our Lady of Good Success warned us? Yet we know, when everything looks its bleakest and all human solutions have fallen away, that her Immaculate Heart will triumph.
We are living through a great purification. To St. Augustine is attributed the remark that the saints of the end times will have no further purging to endure after their life, since they will have already gone through it in this world. We must remain steadfast, weathering the storm, for Christ is still in the boat, silent though He may be, and it will never sink as long as He is near us and we are near Him.
Peter Kwasniewski holds a B.A. in Liberal Arts from Thomas Aquinas College in California and an M.A. and Ph.D. in Philosophy from The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. After teaching at the International Theological Institute in Austria and for the Franciscan University of Steubenville’s Austrian Program, he joined the founding team of Wyoming Catholic College in Lander, Wyoming, where he taught theology, philosophy, music, and art history, and directed the Choir and Schola. He now works as a freelance author, public speaker, editor, publisher, and composer.
Dr. Kwasniewski has published five books: Wisdom’s Apprentice (CUA Press, 2007); On Love and Charity (CUA Press, 2008); Sacred Choral Works (Corpus Christi Watershed, 2014); Resurgent in the Midst of Crisis: Sacred Liturgy, the Traditional Latin Mass, and Renewal in the Church (Angelico Press, 2014); and most recently, Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness: Why the Modern Age Needs the Mass of Ages (Angelico Press, 2017). Resurgent in the Midst of Crisis has also been published in Czech, Polish, German, and Portuguese, and will soon appear in Spanish and Belarusian.
Kwasniewski is a board member and scholar of The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, which is publishing the Opera Omnia of the Angelic Doctor, a Fellow of the Albertus Magnus Center for Scholastic Studies, and a Senior Fellow of the St. Paul Center. He has published over 750 articles on Thomistic thought, sacramental and liturgical theology, the history and aesthetics of music, and the social doctrine of the Church.
THE CLERICAL SEWER CONTINUES TO BACK UP AND THE STENCH IS BECOMING OVERPOWERING, IS GOD THE ONLY ‘PLUMBER’ WHO CAN CLEAN IT OUT OR ARE THERE IN THE CHURCH COURAGEOUS PRELATES WHO CAN DO WHAT MUST BE DONE?
By now, Catholics the world over are sick of hearing about the not-so-secret life of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. Stories that involve unwanted touching of minors and seminarians, strange costumes, familial nicknames, and the Cardinal demanding that young men share his bed. Stories that involve “gay sex parties at the bishop’s residence”, and other things we’d rather not contemplate.
The sordid details of these cases have been made known, and will, unfortunately, probably continue to come to light as this so-called “MeToo moment for the Church” continues to unravel. But McCarrick is only the tip of an iceberg, and what lies beneath must be brought to light.
Who Knew, And Why Didn’t They Act?
Even as the moral corruption of McCarrick becomes undeniable, the question of the networks that supported and covered his actions have taken on a pressing urgency. Those responsible for keeping silence are men who continue to serve in the Church. Men who knew what kind of a monster McCarrick was when he was being raised to the rank of cardinal – and either did nothing to stop it, or refused to come forward when those they reported it to turned a blind eye.
The impact of this silence was explained by one of McCarrick’s victims, a man named James, who says that McCarrick — then a priest and a friend of the boy’s family — started molesting him at least as early as age 11. In an interview with Rod Dreher of The American Conservative, James answered the question of what he would like to say “to the people – bishops, priests, and laymen – who know who Theodore McCarrick is and what he did to people, but who are to this day keeping the old man’s secrets”:
“I would say, ‘What is so important that you are afraid to lose? Why do you believe that you are more important than so many other lives? Why can’t you just let us all know what you know? Otherwise, all his cronies that he brought on to replace him will continue his abuse in the church. They believe that if they speak out, the Catholic Church will no longer be. They piss me off because they don’t have the guts to step up and say something.”
Later in that interview, Dreher points out that men like Cardinal Kevin Farrell — who was also in a position of stature in the Legionaries of Christ under the horrifyingly perverse founder of that order, Fr. Marcial Maciel — claim they did not know about McCarrick’s sexual corruption. Michael Brendan Dougherty of National Review says of this claim:
What a life! To have been twice put in the best place to know what, at that level, “everyone knows,” and yet to have known nothing. Why should such a clueless man be elevated to the office of cardinal and given a curial position? Why should a prelate whose sense of the Church is so deficient that he resoundingly declared of the abuse crisis in 2002 that it was “over” be in charge of the World Meeting of Families in Dublin this year? If anyone comes forward with credible evidence that Cardinal Farrell did in fact know about McCarrick’s relationships with seminarians, will he resign his offices?
Abuse victim James’s response to the denial of knowledge is even more visceral:
“They lie,” he growls. “They lie through their teeth and hoping that everything will go away, because the great Oz behind the curtain, Cardinal McCarrick, is going to fix things again.
Earlier in the interview, James explains why McCarrick got away with it for so long:
“He lives in his own little private world,” says James, his voice rising in anger. “He believes most of the shit that he says for himself. His ego is bigger than yours and mine and 300 people put together. He believes that he is untouchable, and that there’s nobody else in the world who can put him aside.”
But as more and more Catholics are realizing, the heat of righteous anger rising within them, that can’t be allowed to happen. Not for McCarrick, and not for those who covered for him.
Follow the Money
An intricate pattern of dominoes are lined up on edge across the ecclesiastical table, and McCarrick has crashed right into it. They are teetering precariously. Which will be the first to fall?
Perhaps the best place to look would be the most obvious. In the initial statement about credible accusations of abuse against McCarrick from a minor back in June, the Newark Archdiocese made a stunning concession:
“In the past, there have been allegations that he engaged in sexual behavior with adults. This Archdiocese and the Diocese of Metuchen received three allegations of sexual misconduct with adults decades ago; two of these allegations resulted in settlements.”
When were these settlements? Who knew about them? Was the Vatican consulted? Why was this kept secret from the faithful?
According to the New York Times, the Dioceses of Trenton, Metuchen, and Newark, New Jersey — two of which (Metuchen and Newark) McCarrick headed as bishop — paid an $80,000 settlement in 2005 to Mr. Richard Ciolek, a former Catholic priest and victim of McCarrick’s bizarre sexual proclivities. (According to the Times, Ciolek — who left the priesthood and got married in 1999 — was asked by McCarrick’s former secretary if he was planning to sue the Diocese of Metuchen, meaning that at some level, the awareness of McCarrick’s activities there long-predated the settlements.)
A year earlier, according to the Times, another unnamed former priest of the Metuchen diocese was forced to resign under the Church’s “zero tolerance policy” on sexual abuse. The reason? A decade earlier he had come forward, claiming that “Archbishop McCarrick had inappropriately touched him and other seminarians” during the 1980s – another incident that should have been in the diocesan files long before McCarrick was ever made a cardinal or given one of the most important diocesan sees in America. The unnamed priest alleged that McCarrick had asked him on one occasion (when he was still a seminarian) “to change into a striped sailor shirt and a pair of shorts he [McCarrick] had on hand” and join him in bed.” “He put his arms around me and wrapped his legs between mine,” the former priest said. “He also wrote that he once saw Archbishop McCarrick having sex with a young priest in a cabin at the Eldred fishing camp, and that the archbishop invited him to be ‘next.’”
When this priest wrote to his new bishop (the late Edward T. Hughes) in 1994 to divulge the abuse, he made a stunning confession; he said that he himself had gone on to inappropriately touch two 15-year-old boys, which he believed he did because of “the sexual and emotional abuse he endured” at the hands of McCarrick. He said this abuse had “left him so traumatized that it triggered” his own predatory behavior. In 2007, that former priest received a $100,000 settlement from Metuchen for his own abuse. (No indication was made in the article that the two boys had ever come forward or received any settlement)
Does anyone believe that five and six figure settlement checks from dioceses are not cleared by their bishops, if not signed directly by them? Does anyone believe the bishops of Metuchen, Trenton, and Newark were not aware of what McCarrick was accused of? Does anyone think they shouldn’t have said anything? So who were they?
Who was the bishop of Metuchen in 2004 and 2007 when the two settlements were issued? Bishop Paul Gregory Bootkoski, who also served as auxiliary bishop and vicar general of Newark under McCarrick. Bootkoski made headlines in 2015 when he defended the suspension of a teacher in one of his Catholic schools for a Facebook post decrying the gay agenda. The teacher was later reinstated after significant public backlash.
Who was the bishop of Trenton in 2004? Bishop John Mortimer Fourette Smith. In 2002, according to Wikipedia, “Smith removed a priest accused of molesting a young boy from an administrative position in the diocese.The diocese had reported the allegation to the Monmouth County prosecutor’s office when it was first made in 1990, but prosecutors had decided not to file criminal charges because of insufficient evidence. Smith relieved the priest of his duties following a review of personnel files to ensure the public’s confidence in the clergy.”
Who was the bishop of Newark, the Archdiocesan See for all three of the dioceses in the 2004 settlement and thus arguably the key player of the three? Archbishop John J. Myers. It is with Myers in particular that the questions grow deeper. In 2002, Myers was featured on a list published by the Dallas Morning News of American bishops who had “allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to keep working.” According to that report:
During his time as leader of the Diocese of Peoria, Ill. – which he left last year – at least one priest was accused of sexual abuse and reassigned. A Peoria diocesan spokeswoman said the Rev. John Anderson was first accused of abuse in 1993 and removed from a parish. The archbishop, who was recently appointed to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops abuse committee, said he had no knowledge of the matter. Father Anderson, who served until recently as director of the diocesan office for Propagation of the Faith, has not commented publicly. He was among seven priests suspended in May by the Peoria Diocese. After those suspensions, accusers of a previously suspended Peoria priest said that Archbishop Myers had not responded to their complaints in the early 1990s until, after months of frustration, they talked to a local newspaper. And then-Bishop Myers later moved to reinstate the Rev. Francis Engels, then backed off when alleged victims complained. “I didn’t realize they would be so upset,” the archbishop recently said.
In a NJ.com article from 2017 entitled, “The Dark Legacy of Archbishop John Myers”, writer Tom Moran tells the story of Newark priest Fr. Kevin Gugliotta — who infamously told his probation officers that he “uploaded child porn to get back at God” because he wasn’t winning poker tournaments. At the time of his arrest, Archbishop Myers claimed (official statement) that there were “no allegations that he may have engaged in similar activities in New Jersey”.
Except that there were.
In 2003, a father of two children came forward to report that Gugliotta had fondled him 15 years earlier, just before Gugliotta became a priest. The alleged victim testified to both police and the archdiocese, and Gugliotta was suspended.
So wasn’t that fondling a “similar activity”? No, says the archdiocese: Child pornography is different than child abuse.
I asked if that word-parsing might have tricked some people into believing this priest’s history was clean: “It’s always possible people will interpret things the way they want to interpret them,” says the archdiocese spokesman, Jim Goodness.
The story gets worse, and more infuriating.
It turns out that because this alleged abuse occurred before Gugliotta became a priest, Vatican canon law forbids the archdiocese from imposing punishment — even if the charges are true. So in 2004, Gugliotta was reinstated as a priest.
Here’s where Myers’ sin becomes unforgiveable to me: He assigned Gugliotta to jobs where he had easy contact with children. For eight years Gugliotta worked with a youth group in Scotch Plains at St. Bartholomew the Apostle Parish.
“I had no idea,” his supervisor, the Rev. John Paladino, told Mark Mueller of NJ Advance Media. “As a pastor, I would want to know something like that.”
Eight years. How many kids in Scotch Plains were abused? How about kids in other parishes where he served – in Short Hills, Wyckoff, West Orange and Mahwah?
Why didn’t Myers at least keep Gugliotta away from children?
“I can’t answer that question,” says Goodness, the spokesman. “He has the discretion to assign priests…He could have assigned him to something else.”
Mueller has written about several cases like this over the years, cases where Myers’ behavior makes you want to scream.
“I don’t want his resignation,” the mother of one victim told me during a protest in Newark four years ago. “I want Bishop Myers to go to jail.”
Based on the above-mentioned cases, if Myers knew about McCarrick, is there any reason to believe would he have done anything about his activities? Why aren’t more questions being asked of him? A Google search on Myers turns up not a single news result more recent than 2017.
A Papal Protector?
The moment the settlements were issued for abuse by McCarrick, the bishops involved had a moral obligation to take action on McCarrick, who in addition to his continued public ministry, would go on to participate in the 2005 conclave that elected Benedict XVI, and would be actively involved in the outcome of the conclave of 2013.
Which raises another important question: Although McCarrick was too old to participate in the 2013 papal election, he was involved in influencing it. In February 2013, McCarrick talked up the possibility of a Third World Pope in an interview with John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter. Throughout the interview, McCarrick referenced the Third World three different times; he mentioned Latin America seven times. “I think it would be so great for the focus to be on areas like Latin America.” He said. “If we could have a Latin American [pope], that would be great too.”
It was only when asked specifically if he was referring to Cardinal Bergoglio at one point in the interview that he demurred somewhat in what was — in hindsight — some pretty blatant signaling.
Later, in a talk given at Villanova University in Philadelphia in October, 2013, McCarrick revealed just how hard he was pushing that message, and why. He said that a “very interesting and influential Italian gentlemen” came to see him in Rome and asked him to campaign for Bergoglio:
We sat down. This is a very brilliant man, a very influential man in Rome. We talked about a number of things. He had a favor to ask me for [when I returned] back home in the United States.
But then [the influential Italian] said, ‘What about Bergoglio?’
And I was surprised at the question.
I said, ‘What about him?’
He said, ‘Does he have a chance?’
I said, ‘I don’t think so, because no one has mentioned his name. He hasn’t been in anyone’s mind. I don’t think it’s on anybody’s mind to vote for him.”
He said, ‘He could do it, you know.’
I said, ‘What could he do?’
He said, ‘[Bergoglio] could reform the Church. If we gave him five years, he could put us back on target.’
I said, ‘But, he’s 76.’
He said, ‘Yeah, five years. If we had five years, the Lord working through Bergoglio in five years could make the Church over again.’
I said, ‘That’s an interesting thing.’
He said, ‘I know you’re his friend.’
I said, ‘I hope I am.’
He said, ‘Talk him up.’
I said, ‘Well, we’ll see what happens. This is God’s work.’
That was the first that I heard that there were people who thought Bergoglio would be a possibility in this election.
According to Pete Baklinksi of LifeSiteNews, “McCarrick went on to say in his talk that when his time came to speak to all the cardinals prior to the vote, he urged them to elect someone from ‘Latin America’ who could identify with the poor.”
Just like he had in the NCR interview.
It has by now been well-documented that Pope Francis is loyal to those whom he considers friends – even when their moral turpitude is on full display. Can we expect that McCarrick fare any worse under Pope Francis than Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who among various other anti-Catholic behaviors during his tenure was caught on tape trying to dissuade a clerical abuse victim from going public? As Henry Sire writes in his seminal work, The Dictator Pope, Danneels had his home and offices raided by police, who seized computers and abuse allegation documentation. “For reasons that remain unclear,” wrote Sire, “the seized evidence was declared to have been inadmissible, the documents returned to the archdiocese and the investigation was abruptly closed. This despite the fact that individuals had come forward with almost five hundred separate complaints, including many that alleged Danneels had used his power and connections to shield clerical sex abusers.”
And yet Danneels was part of the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia” that helped elect Bergoglio to the papacy. His involvement as a popemaker led Danneels to enjoy the 2013 conclave as — in his words — “a personal resurrection experience.” And as we’ve reported before, if one looks at the loggia, where the newly minted Pope Francis stands before the crowd, who is standing in the shadows? One Cardinal Godfried Danneels, looking rather proud of his achievement:
Time after time, complaint after complaint, those closest to the pope, or who helped him obtain power, escape justice – at least until public pressure becomes too great, as it did with Bishop Juan Barros. Four of the pope’s C9 council of cardinal advisers — including its head, Bishop Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga — have been implicated in neglect in dealing with or direct cover-ups of clerical sexual abuse. In addition to Maradiaga, whose scandal involves his recently-resigned auxiliary bishop, Juan José Pineda Fasquelle, CMF — as well as a new open letter claiming egregious homosexual activity at Maradiaga’s major seminary — Cardinals Marx and Errazuriz have both been implicated in mishandling abuse cases, and Marx even admitted his negligence. The outlier of the four is Cardinal George Pell of Australia, who found himself facing 40-year-old abuse charges — charges he has vigorously denied — after he uncovered significant financial irregularities at the Vatican Bank.
Also of note is the fact that the pope’s hand-picked liaison to the now-stalled Vatican Bank Reform, Msgr. Battista Ricca, was claimed to have outraged church figures in Uruguay during a diplomatic posting in 1999, when he moved “his lover, Patrick Haari, a Swiss army captain, in with him”, only to later have Haari forced out by apostolic nuncio Janusz Bolonek in 2001. Ricca was caught later that year in an elevator, where he was “trapped with a youth known by local police” after being attacked at a “cruising ground” – a meeting place for area homosexuals. There is no indication that Ricca has been removed of his position as Prelate the Vatican Bank, despite indications that his past was hidden from the pope and reports of his offered resignation as long ago as 2013. Less well known is the fact that it was in reference to a specific question about Msgr. Ricca that Pope Francis infamously responded, “Who am I to Judge?”
What confidence can any Catholic have, then, that McCarrick, whose abuse thus far appears to fall outside civil statues of limitations, will face any justice for his crimes? What hope have we that he will be defrocked and laicized, as other, less significant clerics have been for far less? What chance is there that any action will be initiated by Rome? Will Bishops Bootkoski, Smith, and Myers be thoroughly questioned and exposed and disciplined if complicity is discovered? Or Tobin and Farrell for that matter? Will the pope’s 2016 motu proprio on episcopal enablers of clerical sex abuse, As a Loving Mother, actually be put to use? That instruction states that, “In the case of the abuse of minors and vulnerable adults it is enough that the lack of diligence be grave,” and that a bishop “can be legitimately removed from this office if he has through negligence committed or through omission facilitated acts that have caused grave harm to others, either to physical persons or to the community as a whole. The harm may be physical, moral, spiritual or through the use of patrimony.”
Of course, experience gives us the answer. We can expect no such thing from Rome, which routinely turns a blind eye to moral corruption in the ranks of our bishops. We can expect nothing from the fellow bishops who may have information, or may in fact be complicit in some way, or concerned about the revelation of their own sins. We can almost certainly expect more silence from priests afraid of retribution.
It seems imperative, then, that the push come from the laity. From normal pewsitters. From journalists. From those who know what has happened, and want it to stop.
With McCarrick’s documented involvement in promoting the election of one Cardinal Bergoglio, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that once the dominoes start falling, the last one in this network of corruption that is protecting clerical abusers will fall at the feet of Pope Francis.
Wherever it leads us, let them fall.
WHAT ARE WE TO THINK WHEN ANOTHER CARDINAL ADVISOR OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS NOW UNDER THE CLOUD OF SUSPICION OF PROMOTING A HOMOSEXUAL CLERGY
Pope Francis’ top ‘reform’ cardinal slams seminarians for exposing homosexuality inside seminary
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras, July 26, 2018, (LifeSiteNews) – One of the Vatican’s most influential cardinals, already suspected of looking the other way while gay relationships were conducted in his personal residence, has now admonished fifty seminarians for speaking out against their seminary’s rampant homosexual subculture.
“Instead of praising the seminarians,” tweeted Ed Pentin, the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) who broke the story, Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga “accused them of being “gossipers” who wish to portray their fellow seminarians in a bad light.”
“When their letter was read out to bishops, the cardinal “immediately started attacking the letter’s authors,” he added.
Instead of praising the seminarians ++Maradiaga accused them of being “gossipers” who wish to portray their fellow seminarians in a bad light. When their letter was read out to bishops, the cardinal “immediately started attacking the letter’s authors” http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/honduran-seminarians-allege-widespread-homosexual-misconduct …
Honduran Seminarians Allege Widespread Homosexual Misconduct
But to date, Cardinal Maradiaga has not responded publicly to the allegations regarding his archdiocesan seminary.
Maradiaga is the leader of Pope Francis’ Council of Nine cardinals and was entrusted with the Pope’s Vatican reforms.
The concerned seminarians said in their joint letter that they could not “hide any more the magnitude of this problem in the seminary,” according to NCR, which obtained a copy of the letter.
“We are living and experiencing a time of tension in our house because of gravely immoral situations, above all of an active homosexuality inside the seminary that has been a taboo all this time,” continued the young men’s letter, “and by covering up and penalizing this situation the problem has grown in strength, turning into, as one priest said not so long ago, an ‘epidemic in the seminary.’”
Their letter seeks systemic changes for the seminary, including demanding that the school’s formators follow magisterial teaching on homosexuality and that their seminarians who engage in gay romantic or sexual behavior be ousted.
“Not everyone who wants to can be a priest!” they said. “The ministry is a gift that should be lived and received from the conviction of the Gospel and radical and jealous love.”
The NCR report offers other stunning glimpses inside the troubled Honduran seminary:
“Heterosexual seminarians are scandalized and really depressed,” one of the seminarians who drafted the letter told the Register.
“Many are thinking about leaving the seminary,” the seminarian said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of a fear of reprisals. “I fear that many will leave.”
The report continues:
Part of the impetus for the letter to bishops was that a seminarian from the Honduran Diocese of Santa Rosa de Copán tried but failed to take his own life in April, after he had discovered his male lover in the seminary was in another relationship.
The Register has obtained a copy of the seminarian’s suicide note. “I am going to my Father’s house,” the handwritten letter reads. “I never believed that my friend, my brother, the one that I trusted everything and which I gave too many things,” would have “betrayed me that way.”
The Register also obtained graphic photographic evidence of homosexual pornography, exchanged on WhatsApp between seminarians who did not sign the letter, as well as other obscene messages. The exchanges have been verified as authentic by computer specialists at the Catholic University of Honduras who searched computer memory and handed the exchanges to the country’s bishops.
Upon hearing the contents of the letter, both Cardinal Maradiaga and Honduran bishops’ conference president, Bishop Angel Garachana Pérez, reportedly lashed out against the letter’s authors.
Cardinal Maradiaga “looks out for the guilty but doesn’t realize that over half the seminarians are homosexuals,” according to a source who spoke to NCR.
The developing archdiocesan seminary scandal comes on the heels of another homosexual scandal concerning one of Cardinal Maradiaga’s close colleagues, Auxiliary Bishop Juan José Pineda Fasquelle, which came to light last year.
Pineda was known to have a “string of intimate male friends” on whom he lavished gifts, going so far as to give his first assistant, a Mexican named Erick Cravioto Fajardo, a downtown apartment.
But for years, Cravioto lived in a room adjacent to the Cardinal’s quarters at the archbishop’s residence, Villa Iris, where Bishop Pineda also had living quarters.
“Cravioto’s room was ‘right next to the cardinal,’ who knew ‘perfectly well that Pineda spent hours and hours with him and never said anything, never did anything,’” according to an earlier Register report.
The cardinal reportedly dismissed Bishop Pineda’s relationship with Cravioto and “made excuses for it all,” according to the Register’s Honduran source.
Pope Francis accepted Bishop Pineda’s resignation last week.
Polish priest Fr. Dariusz Oko exposed in 2012 what he called a “huge homosexual underground in the Church” where actively homosexual seminarians, priests, and bishops “shield one another by offering mutual support.”
“They build informal relationships reminding of a clique or even mafia, aim at holding particularly those positions which offer power and money,” he wrote.
“When they achieve a decision-making position, they try to promote and advance mostly those whose nature is similar to theirs, or at least who are known to be too weak to oppose them. This way, leading positions in the Church may be held by people suffering from deep internal wounds,” he added.
CATHOLIC HEAVYWEIGHTS DEMAND BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY
NEWS: US NEWS
For some, the Cdl. McCarrick scandal is the last straw
DETROIT (ChurchMilitant.com) – Fed up with systemic corruption and cover-up in the Church, Catholic leaders are demanding a reckoning from the bishops.
Revelations that Cdl. Theodore McCarrick — one of America’s highest-ranking prelates — preyed on young seminarians while bishop in New Jersey, and, worse, that he was able to advance in his clerical career in spite of leaders’ widespread knowledge of his misconduct, have provoked strong reactions from Catholics.
“The McCarrick revelations not only exemplify the toxic and deforming influence of homosexuality in the higher echelons of the Church, but expose the mournful reality that the American Catholic hierarchy is institutionally corrupt,” C.J. Doyle, head of Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, told Church Militant.
“I am among those who heard these stories years ago but was told that the victims were not willing to be named,” said Deal Hudson, editor at The Christian Review. “You can imagine what I, and many others, were thinking when we read the story in the Washington Post calling McCarrick the ‘Vatican’s Man of the Hour.'”
Austin Ruse, president of the Center for Family and Human Rights, told Church Militant, “Pressure must be put on the bishops. The problem is that some of us really appreciate our bishops, and so we are not sure what to do, or where to put the pressure. Clearly, something drastic has to happen.”
Author Matt Abbott, who writes at RenewAmerica and reported on the prelate’s misdeeds more than a decade ago, said, “When I first wrote about McCarrick’s abuse of power in 2005 and 2006, not many people seemed interested — certainly not the Catholic establishment or the mainstream media, although they knew about McCarrick. … [T]he moral corruption runs deep and only Divine Intervention will correct it — in God’s time.”
John-Henry Westen of LifeSiteNews told Church Militant it was no surprise to learn that McCarrick was an abuser, but “what was very disconcerting is that there were other bishops who were aware of his crimes and nevertheless allowed him to destroy the Church in America — that too is a crime deserving punishment.”
“And it is for the benefit of those bishops who knew and remained silent that their punishment comes this side of Heaven,” he added. “It would be just that those found to be involved in these types of scandals would step down from their exalted positions and spend the remainder of their days praying for the good of the Church.”
Michael Hichborn, president of the Lepanto Institute, said:
I was absolutely appalled when I first learned about Cdl. McCarrick’s abuse of seminarians, and the fact that this was well known by high-ranking bishops. If those bishops covered up something this egregious, what else are they hiding? Even more to the point, one is forced to ask how many of those bishops in the know about McCarrick approved or even participated in similar activities?
Patrick Craine at LifeSiteNews also weighed in. “The McCarrick scandal has shone a bright spotlight on the deep rot that still exists in our Church,” he noted. “The Church absolutely needs greater accountability for our bishops. Their misdeeds need to come to light, and they cannot be allowed to resign quietly, as we saw happen last week with Bp. Juan José Pineda Fasquelle in Honduras.”
Fasquelle, a close associate of Cdl. Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga (nicknamed the “Vice Pope” for his level of influence over Pope Francis), submitted his resignation at the early age of 57 after allegations that he’d embezzled diocesan money and sexually assaulted seminarians.
In response to Church Militant’s comparison between McCarrick and disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, Stephen Herreid, managing editor at CatholicVote.org, tweeted, “A chilling analogy when you remember Weinstein isn’t some rare exception. He’s reportedly the EPITOME of a mainstream Hollywood big-wig. And as his lawyer said at trial: “He didn’t invent the casting couch.” What if McCarrick isn’t egregious, but typical? What if he’s a FALL-GUY?”
Cutting Off Funding
There are growing calls for laity to close their wallets to the bishops’ appeals.
“We need to cut off the money,” author John Zmirak, senior editor of The Stream, told Church Militant. “Big Catholic donors should create a ‘St. Escrow’ movement, with escrow accounts for each diocese, where all gifts go instead of to the bishop. Let the money pile up, and have committees of faithful laymen hold bishops accountable, if they want a single dime.”
Beverly Stevens, editor-in-chief of Regina Magazine, is thinking along the same lines.
“Stop donating to corrupt bishops and clerics,” she insisted. “Why? Because you are enabling them. … Set up a 501(c)3 laity-controlled fund. When your priest needs his electric bill paid or his roof fixed, the fund then can pay for his needs directly.”
Calling it the “We Need a New Bishop” fund, she suggests notifying the papal nuncio and the media. “Since wealthy donors account for about 90 percent of the funds — leaving aside federal moneys, which is another big issue — this should concentrate the Vatican’s attention rather quickly,” she added.
“The laity should withhold their contributions from paying the obscene salaries of chancery officials and their lawyers and PR flacks,” Doyle commented. “Adverse publicity, exposing and denouncing their malfeasance, may have a salutary effect, but unlike politicians, bishops are not elected, and unlike professionals and businessmen, bishops don’t seem to care if they lose clients and customers. Perhaps, lawsuits, and where applicable, criminal prosecutions, might focus their attention.”
“There are two things bishops and cardinals like McCarrick fear: exposure and loss of funds,” said Hichborn. “If the laity are frustrated and fed-up with the abuse of power coming from these hierarchs, then the laity needs to be prepared to expose the corruption and put an end to the funding.”
“After the terrorist attacks of 9-11, the Homeland Security slogan was, ‘If you see something, say something,'” he added. “Abusive cardinals and bishops like McCarrick are nothing short of ecclesial terrorists, so it’s time to expose them. If you see something, say something.”
LifeSiteNews‘ Westen notes that money will get the attention of the bishops in a way other appeals won’t.
“Unfortunately having the faithful withhold funds is one of the only ways they can make their voices heard,” Westen said, adding, “Good priests, though, should not be made to suffer. Most parishioners can designate their funds for building, heating or local parish costs rather then allowing them to be given to the diocese.”
Deal Hudson agrees.
“Money seems to be the only thing that influences many of the bishops to listen and to take active steps towards reform,” he said. “Yes, if the laity withholds its donation in big enough numbers, there will be change, and serious self-scrutiny, as a result. Any of the bishops with McCarrick-like backgrounds should resign before it’s brought to light.”
“They need to address the McCarrick situation, and all its implications, in a new report that includes independent lay involvement,” he added, “asking why so many of this nation’s leading bishops and other religious did nothing to bring McCarrick to justice.”
“We should not be putting money in the hands of bishops who have proven they cannot be trusted,” Craine said. “I don’t think any Catholic should be giving money to their national collections. Catholics have been raising the alarm about the use of these funds for years now, yet the problems remain.”
“For example, the international relief arms of the Church, like Catholic Relief Services and Canada’s Development and Peace, continue to fund pro-abortion groups in the developing world despite mounds of evidence,” he noted. “On the local level, if the bishop is not known for orthodoxy and courageous leadership, I would not be giving him money for his projects,” he added. “There are so many amazing apostolates doing real service for the Church that I would rather support.
A Failure in Leadership
“Any organization may be afflicted by egregious incidents of personal misconduct,” said Doyle. “When that organization is incapable of policing itself, when it is unable or unwilling to punish offenders, when it refuses to expel miscreants, and when it lacks the will to reform its corporate culture, then the institution is itself corrupt. Such is the case with American Catholicism today.”
Zmirak puzzles at the misplaced focus of the bishops. “Even as 40 percent of U.S. Catholics drift out of the Church, our bishops focus on opening the borders to import our replacements,” he commented. “Steve Bannon was absolutely right: Most of them have given up on us, and on preaching or teaching the Faith.”
“A constant influx of fresh faces to fill the pews (before they, too, get scandalized and leave) lets bishops dodge the need for root and branch reforms,” he went on. “They can leave their seminaries lavender, glad-hand pro-abort politicos, and keep seeming like leaders of consequential institutions instead of bumbling cowards, whose smarter and straighter brothers went to work for the United Auto Workers or Democratic National Committee.”
“We need to cut off the supply of fresh souls, by helping the president fix our immigration crisis,” Zmirak added. “Let the bishops know they can’t just wave us off and ignore us, because there won’t be millions showing up to replace us.”
“The pope and the hierarchy must reform themselves in their selection of candidates for bishops giving precedence to the purity of faith rather than looking for exalted academic degrees and worldly characteristics,” Westen remarked. “We must like Christ seek out the good fishermen rather than the power brokers of the world.”
Craine remarked, “Our first act of rebellion against the current apostasy must be to strive for sanctity ourselves, build up our domestic churches, and raise our children in virtue.”
“But the laity must also be willing to out every predator bishop, and every heretic bishop in our Church,” he said, adding:
And we need to call our priests and bishops to do the same. It’s essential that we always respect the office, but that can’t lead us into pusillanimity or human respect. Very frequently respect of the office requires calling out the sins of the office holder. The Code of Canon Law makes clear that calling out our prelates is a right of the lay faithful, but also can be a duty (Canon 212 §3). Nowadays it often is.
But some wonder if the bishops will respond.
“I am, frankly, pessimistic,” Doyle told Church Militant. “The Counter-Reformation began when a Pope who was serious about the reform of the Church, Paul III, began appointing men who were serious about the reform of the Church to the College of Cardinals and to the bench of bishops. There is no indication, none whatsoever, that we are even approaching that point.”
Church Militant is encouraging adult victims of clerical harassment to share your stories by writing to MeToo@churchmilitant.com.
Michael Voris adds:
Today: a call to action on two fronts. There is a groundswell now developing among faithful Catholics that something must be done, and done now, about sexually abusive bishops and their brother bishops covering all this up.
The recent revelations about Cdl. Theodore McCarrick have set off an explosion of comments and overall disgust at the role of so many members of the Establishment Church — particularly the hierarchy — in covering up this decades-long evil.
And let’s be clear, we are not talking about the child molestation cases, we are talking about adult men who are sexually harassed or advanced on by priests, bishops and even cardinals. There has been a lot of backroom discussion among faithful Catholics who have had it — and I do mean had it.
A number of faithful Catholic media have been in contact with each other and meeting quietly and sharing ideas. The resolution: The U.S. bishops must be held to account for the climate of sexual harassment and intimidation they have helped to create of seminarians, priests, parish workers, college students and so forth.
Right now, there is absolutely no channel for a victim to proceed to. He simply goes to whoever he thinks is best — and often times finds himself betrayed — tossed out of the seminary, or attacked by clergy in his own diocese, or railroaded out. It is a climate of intimidation owing to the bishops unwillingness to address the crisis of homosexual men in the clergy.
Since the title of this Vortex is #CatholicMeToo, allow me to go first.
When I was a sophomore at Notre Dame in 1981, a priest who was the rector of the summer school dorm — and who was also gay — made a series of sexual advances to me. He even wrote a number of letters to me through campus mail which he signed, “Your Secret Pal.” The letters were sexually explicit and disgusting. I was under this man’s authority in summer school because he was the rector of the dorm.
I reported him to university and religious authorities and a big meeting was suddenly held where I was dragged in and accused of lying about the priest and threatened with expulsion if I did not seek psychiatric help. The priest was allowed to remain in his post for at least five more years as a dorm rector. Only the very loud threat by my parents of going to the media made them back down. Nothing further happened.
I spent the next two years wondering — looking over my shoulder — was the university going to try and pull something again? Was the priest going to contact me again? I graduated two years later and the priest remained on campus in the dorms until he died about three years ago. There — that’s my story in sum.
We know that there are thousands of others — probably tens of thousands of stories very similar to this — where you were sexually harassed by a homosexual cleric and were doubly victimized by the institution trying to protect or cover-up for him.
What we want is to hear your story, and in concert with various other faithful Catholic media, we have established an email for you to tell us your story privately. If you’d like to go public with names and places, that’s fine. If you’d like to let us know your story but keep your identity private, that’s fine too.
The email address is on the screen right now: MeToo@ChurchMilitant.com. We’ll leave it up for the rest of The Vortex.
We know for many people, me as well, these are horrible thoughts to bring back to mind. But something has to be done. These stories that wicked clerics have spent careers trying to keep hidden must now be told. Please email us tell us your story.
We said at the beginning this is a call to action on two fronts. Emailing us your story is the first front. The second is this, we are asking all faithful Catholics to immediately cease any financial support of the bishop’s activities until they have taken decisive action to resolve this situation.
No Catholics should be supporting any diocesan appeal for money, no huge diocesan-wide campaigns, no national collections, no social justice efforts run by the bishops — nothing. Not a penny more for any of it. Money in the basket for the parish itself, and that’s it.
We have been lied to, abused, played for fools and our trust betrayed at the highest levels of the Church. Our donations and sacrifices have been used to grease the wheels of this wickedness, providing for a reckless clergy and episcopate who often times live lavish lifestyles with none of the concerns facing their flocks of health care, pensions, shelter, insurance, car payments, groceries — nothing.
We are calling for nothing less than a #CatholicMeToo uprising in the Church and demanding the bishops give an account of their actions, take decisive steps to provide a recourse for adult victims of their sexual harassment and where necessary, to resign their offices.
This evil has got to come to an end. They aren’t going to lift a finger, as the past has proven oh too well, so we must. The time has come. Let’s get it all out in the open, get justice for the victims. Exposure of the wicked. Fix this stinking mess. And until this is rectified and certain bishops are no longer in office, no more money for their causes.
Their only cause should be truth and justice in charity, and for decades, the entire Establishment has artfully sidestepped both. Past or present victims, lay and clergy, seminarians or college students, parish workers or chancery staff, email us your stories.
We place all this under the mantle of Our Blessed Mother.
Email us with your story: MeToo@churchmilitant.com
There is little evidence more convincing of the insanity of some Democrats than their support of the “Abolish ICE” movement.
Two Words Democrats May Regret
If you vote Democratic, this is the commercial you don’t want to see:
“In 2017, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency stopped 7,000 pounds of heroin from entering America, as well as 2,300 pounds of fentanyl, a drug so deadly just a few grams can be lethal.
“To dismantle criminal gangs and keep America safe, ICE agents made more than 143,000 arrests, and 92 percent of those taken into custody were aliens with criminal convictions or pending criminal charges, or were immigration fugitives or illegal re-entrants.
“The agency also stopped 2,000 human traffickers from entering our borders, rescuing more than 900 abused children who were forced into virtual slavery.
“Now, one party in Congress is turning its back on this agency.
“In a recent vote, 9 out of 10 Democrats refused to support a simple measure in the House of Representatives that defends this crucial arm of law enforcement and admonishes efforts to abolish ICE.
“So, when you vote on Nov. 6, just ask yourself: Which party is more committed to keeping America safe?”
For voters who are neither hard-core Democratic nor Republican and therefore can be swayed, you can see how such a message can be lethal to Democratic hopes of regaining the House.
And yet, a growing movement is afoot among progressives to “Abolish ICE.” This movement has become so noisy it is spooking Democratic politicians who should know better. That may explain why on July 17, only 18 House Democrats voted to support ICE and admonish efforts to abolish the agency. Evidently, they didn’t want to alienate angry activists.
This movement has become so noisy it is spooking Democratic politicians who should know better.
In an analysis in The New York Times, Alexander Burns writes that this new faction is “increasingly rattling primary elections around the country, and they promise to grow as a disruptive force in national elections as younger voters reject the traditional boundary lines of Democratic politics.”
These voters, he adds, are also “seeking to remake their own party as a ferocious — and ferociously liberal — opposition force. And many appear as focused on forcing progressive policies into the midterm debate as they are on defeating Republicans.”
Abolishing ICE is not the only policy they’re forcing into the midterm debate (there are others, such as single-payer health care), but it is clearly their most emotional and visible cause. The images of migrant children being separated from parents as part of President Donald Trump’s zero-tolerance policy were traumatizing. An angry response was to be expected, and ICE was an easy target.
This lashing out at ICE, however, is political suicide.
“Democrats are making a massive political mistake by calling for the end of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),” Princeton Professor Julian Zelizer writes on the CNN website. Why is it a blunder? Because “the strategy shifts attention away from Trump and his hardline policies and toward the issue of government reorganization.”
In other words, the “Abolish ICE” movement lets Trump off the hook. Instead of focusing on his radical and extreme ways, it allows Republicans to focus their message on law enforcement. Every “Abolish ICE” demonstration becomes a de facto commercial in favor of Republicans who value public safety.
The irony is that my biggest beef with the anti-Trump movement has been that it doesn’t offer ideas or solutions — it just bashes Trump. Finally, when it decides to champion a solution, it picks the one most likely to backfire. It sticks its neck out in front of a guillotine.
This blunder is more about strategy than policy. It may well be that abolishing ICE can be justified as part of comprehensive and reasonable immigration reform. But it is anger and extremism, not reason and compromise, that come across in the “Abolish ICE” movement. And the rhetoric is only getting worse: Just last week, in her new Netflix show, comedian Michelle Wolf compared ICE to ISIS.
The “Abolish ICE” movement lets Trump off the hook. Instead of focusing on his radical and extreme ways, it allows Republicans to focus their message on law enforcement.
Such merchants of hysteria, who seem to be feasting on all the media attention, are forgetting that their goal should be to win back the House, not turn off swing voters. It’s a sign of how these activists are losing their heads that, given the juicy target of Trump and his zero-tolerance policy, they picked ICE instead.
As Zelizer writes: “In 2018, Democrats who are angry about the ongoing attacks on undocumented immigrants, as well as legal immigration, don’t really need anything more to rally around. They already have Trump and his blistering rhetoric, and they have the extraordinarily harsh policy of separating children from their families — which, though the President has ended, still remains an issue since more than 2,000 immigrant kids remain in limbo.”
This is the problem with losing your head. You tend to lose voters and you tend to write great commercials — for the other side.
Follow David Suissa on Twitter: @suissatweets
HERE IS YOUR LITTLE DOSE OF SATIRE TO HELP YOU COPE WITH THE PLAGUE OF MEDACITY THAT IS SPREADING FROM ROME
|“I’ve never even heard of McCarrick” says Cardinal Farrell
Posted: 25 Jul 2018 04:44 AM PDT
Today, in a new statement to journalist Cindy Wooden (“Wooden by name, wooden by nature”), Cardinal Kevin Farrell announced, “I’ve never even heard of Cardinal McCarrick.””But you lived with him for six years. Er, not in the ‘Biblical’ sense, of course…”
“No, it’s all lies. I may technically have been ordained by him, but I really don’t remember him. I was too busy trying to look holy.”
“Isn’t that a Father Ted joke?”
“Look, I never met Father Ted. Or Uncle Ted.”
“But you served as his auxiliary bishop.”
“Did I really? That seems very improbable.”
“You have no memory of Uncle Ted at all?”
“No, you know how is it when you’re a priest, you get to meet all sorts of people, even your own bishop, but you can’t be expected to remember names and faces.”
“So when Cardinal McCarrick was having carnal relations with half of the young men in Washington, you were totally unware of what was going on?”
“That’s right. I never heard any gossip. Or mysterious screams in the night. Or complaints.”
“Thank you, Cardinal Farrell, I’m so glad we’ve cleared that up.”
“Can we talk about my new discovery that priests have no credibility? Anything to change the subject…”
“So you’ve never met Cardinal Farrell, Holy Father?”
Pope Benedict installed effective procedural reforms on clerical sex abuse; Francis The Merciful has all but completely dismantled or reversed those changes. Pope Benedict ‘had defrocked or suspended more than 800 priests, his reforms specifically included bishops who refused to act against priest-abusers. These reforms, and removals by comparison have practically ceased under Francis and his Cardinal in charge of sex-abuse cases, Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston
Cardinals Jorge Bergolio and Sean O’Malley
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
Pope Francis and Cardinal O’Malley have Mishandled the Sex Abuse Crisis
Pope Francis and Cardinal Seán O’Malley appear to handle the sex abuse crisis in the same way.
It appears that Francis and O’Malley don’t receive letters when it’s about sex abuse of minors.
Pope Francis’s own chief adviser on sexual abuse matters and president of the Commission for the Protection of Minors Cardinal O’Malley personally gave a sex abuse victim letter to Francis that he never received.
Now, O’ Malley received a letter from a priest that one of the most influential Cardinals in the United States was a sex abuser and he never received it.
O’ Malley’s record as Francis’s own chief adviser on sexual abuse matters shows according to
journalist Hilary White that Francis and O’ Malley have “all but completely dismantled” the “effective” reforms instituted against clerical sex abuse by Benedict:
“Pope Benedict installed effective procedural reforms on clerical sex abuse; Francis… has all but completely dismantled or reversed those changes… Benedict ‘had defrocked or suspended more than 800 priests for past sexual abuse between 2009 and 2012’… His reforms specifically included bishops who refused to act against priest-abusers… ‘This Pope has removed two to three bishops per month’… These reforms – and – removals – have ceased entirely under Francis [and O’Malley].” (Remnant, “Pope Francis Accused of Inaction in Notorious Sex Abuse Cases, January 25, 2017)
What is O’ Malley’s record in his diocese according the Bishop Accountability website (http://www.bishop-accountability.org/OMalley_Fact_Sheet.htm):
Six Ways Cardinal Sean O’Malley Has Mishandled the Abuse Crisis
March 13, 2013
When Cardinal O’Malley is described as papabile, his work on sexual abuse cases as a bishop is often cited. While O’Malley has considerable experience as a “fixer” in the troubled dioceses of Fall River MA, Palm Beach FL, and Boston, his performance in that role raises concerns. A close look at the cardinal reveals a career-long pattern of resisting disclosure of information, reinstating priests of dubious suitability, and negotiating mass settlements that are among the least generous in the history of the crisis.
See also a PDF of this Fact Sheet.
1. Cardinal O’Malley omitted at least 161 names from his published list of accused Boston priests.
As Boston archbishop, Cardinal O’Malley has disclosed minimal information about accused priests. He did not release a list of accused priests until August 2011, years after committing to do so, and then he re-packaged information that was already public: his list did not reveal the name of even one accused priest who was not already known. In fact, he admitted to withholding the names of 91 accused archdiocesan priests – even though the archdiocese had settled with some of their victims and regarded the allegations as ‘compelling and credible.’ [See O’Malley’s August 25, 2011 letter.]
And unlike at least 10 of more than 25 other US bishops who have released lists, O’Malley refused also to name accused religious order clerics. According to a Boston Globe investigation, at least 70 accused order clerics – including some who have gone to prison for child sexual abuse – are missing from the cardinal’s list.
With only 159 names, O’Malley’s long-awaited list was far shorter than expected. In a secret report by the archdiocese’s abuse delegate in 2000 – two years before the crisis broke in Boston – the archdiocese cited a total of 191 accused priests. In his 2003 report, Massachusetts Attorney General Reilly stated that 237 Boston priests had been accused.
2. Cardinal O’Malley has “cleared” a high percentage of accused priests – four times the national average.
According to a largely overlooked archdiocesan report released in April 2006, Cardinal O’Malley’s Review Board “cleared” 45% of priests (32 of 71) investigated for child sexual abuse from July 2003 through December 2005. In these 32 cases, the Board “did not find probable cause that sexual abuse of a minor had occurred.” The names of most of these cleared priests still are not known.
- See the Children First Final Report, original page 13, PDF page 25.
Cardinal O’Malley’s 45% clearance rate of accused priests is much higher than the national average. Catholic Church officials nationwide in 2005 deemed only 10% of allegations false or unsubstantiated.
- See the 2005 Report on the Implementation of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, original page 32, PDF page 31
3. Under O’Malley, the Boston archdiocese has a double standard for employees accused of sexual misconduct. Accused priests may remain in place; accused laypeople are suspended immediately.
The Archdiocese’s published policy indicates that the removal of a priest who is under investigation is not mandatory: “For the period of the preliminary investigation, the Archbishop may request that an accused cleric voluntarily refrain from the public exercise of sacred ministry …” However, if the accused is a lay employee, the Archdiocese’s response is unambiguous and strict: “[T]he supervisor will immediately place the accused person on administrative leave.”
- See A Pocket Guide to the Policies and Procedures for the Protection of Children, PDF pages 7 and 8.
4. Troubling questions remain about certain accused priests cleared by O’Malley.
Rev. Jerome Gillespie was accused in 2005 of soliciting oral sex from a woman and her 12-year-old daughter. Although most charges against him were dismissed, the priest agreed to “sufficient facts” to a charge of annoying and accosting a member of the opposite sex, and a judge ordered him to be evaluated for sex offender treatment and to have no contact with minors for two years without first disclosing his case to guardians. In 2008, it was discovered that O’Malley had quietly returned Gillespie to ministry. After SNAP publicized Gillespie’s reinstatement, O’Malley again withdrew the priest from ministry.
Rev. Thomas Curran was removed from ministry by Cardinal Law in 2002 after a convicted child rapist accused Curran and Rev. Paul Shanley of raping him repeatedly as a boy. In 2007, Cardinal O’Malley announced that Curran had been cleared of all charges and assigned “permanent disability” status. In 2010, another victim of Curran came forward, and the priest was placed on leave again.
Rev. James Power was accused in 1993 of sodomizing a 13-year-old boy in 1980. In 1996, the archdiocese settled with the victim for $35,000. In 2002, Cardinal Law removed Power from ministry and a second victim came forward. The priest’s personnel file, made public in 2002, included an unsigned note, dated August 27, 1993, saying “100% positive other kids.” In 2009, Cardinal O’Malley announced the archdiocese was “unable to substantiate“ either allegation and that Power was removed from leave and assigned senior priest status.
5. As bishop of Fall River MA, O’Malley was accused by the local prosecutor of concealing offenders’ names until the statute of limitations had expired.
As Bishop O’Malley was leaving the diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts, in 2002, the local prosecutor, Bristol County District Attorney Paul Walsh, took the extraordinary step of publicly rebuking the bishop for a decade-long delay in submitting to him the names of 21 accused priests. “Why didn’t he release these names to us 10 years ago?” the DA said. By the time O’Malley gave DA Walsh the priests’ names in 2002, the time window for prosecuting had closed for all but one of the cases.
6. Compared to other bishops, Cardinal O’Malley has not been financially generous or fair to victims of clergy abuse.
In terms of per-survivor amounts, the mass settlements O’Malley negotiated in Fall River in 1992 and in Boston in 2003 have been ungenerous – both rank in the lower 50%.
- See our table of settlements.
Anne Barrett Doyle, BishopAccountability.org, firstname.lastname@example.org, 001 781 439 5208, or 001 (39) 781 439 5208
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
“The Church’s faithful are challenged to contemplate the possibility that they have as pope a figure who falls short of the standards of integrity that we have come to assume in that office, and who has conducted a careful and highly successful whitewashing campaign to present himself as a limpid spiritual figure, first to the Argentine public and then to the world as a whole.””
The following is a summary of an article that was published by Horacio Verbitsky in Salta, on 12 April 2010, while Bergoglio was cardinal-archbishop of Buenos Aires. The title is: “‘Mentiras y Calumnias’. Acusaciones de Yorio y Jalics contra el Cardenal Bergoglio” – “‘Lies and Calumnies’. Accusations by Yorio and Jalics against Cardinal Bergoglio”. The article can be read here.
The background to the story is as follows: in 1976, while Fr. Jorge Bergoglio was Jesuit provincial, a coup d’état established a military dictatorship in Argentina. Two of Fr. Bergoglio’s Jesuit subjects, Fr. Orlando Yorio and Fr. Francisco Jalics, were left-wing priests pursuing a mission in the country’s shantytowns, where terrorist actions took place in the early days of the regime. They were kidnapped by the military and tortured before being released. In 1995, after the fall of the military regime, Fr. Jalics wrote a book, Ejercicios de meditación, in which he made strong accusations against Bergoglio without naming him openly. As a background to his arrest, he notes that when the left-wing priests worked in the shantytowns, sympathizers with the military regime wanted to denounce them as terrorists.
We knew where the wind was blowing from and who was responsible for these calumnies. I therefore went to speak with the person in question and I explained that he was playing with our lives. The man promised me that he would let the military know that we were not terrorists. By later declarations of an officer and by thirty documents to which we subsequently had access we were able to discover without the slightest doubt that that man had not kept his promise but on the contrary had presented a false denunciation to the military.
In another part of the book, Jalics adds that that person “made the calumny credible, using his authority” and “gave witness to the officers who kidnapped us that we had worked on the scene of the terrorist action. Shortly before, I had told that person that he was playing with our lives. He must have been aware that he was sending us to certain death with his declarations.”
For the identification of the anonymous person, Verbitsky referred to a letter that Fr. Orlando Yorio wrote in November 1977, soon after the events, to Fr. Moura, the assistant to the general of the Society of Jesus in Rome. Yorio’s narrative is obviously parallel to Jalics’s; he relates that Fr. Bergoglio, as provincial, told him in conversation that he had received adverse reports about him, and he named three fellow Jesuits, Fathers Oliva, Vicentini, and Scannone, as the source of them. However, when Fr. Yorio spoke to these three, they told him they had given opinions not against him, but in his favor. Yorio states in his letter that Fr. Bergoglio had promised to rein in rumors within the Society of Jesus and to speak to the military to assure them of Fr. Yorio’s and Fr. Jalics’s innocence, but as the provincial, he did nothing to defend them, and “we began to have suspicions about his honesty.” Yorio asserts that for years, Fr. Bergoglio subjected them to a covert harassment, never openly adopting the accusations against them, which he always attributed to other priests or bishops. These clergymen denied such accusations when confronted.
According to Yorio, Fr. Bergoglio had guaranteed him and Fr. Jalics three years’ work in the district of Bajo Flores, but to Archbishop Juan Carlos Aramburu, Bergoglio declared that they were there without authorization. They were told this by Fr. Rodolfo Ricciardelli, who heard it from Archbishop Aramburu himself. Fr. Yorio therefore challenged Fr. Bergoglio, who replied by saying Archbishop Aramburu was a liar.
The circumstances surrounding their kidnap by the military authorities were explained by Fathers Yorio and Jalics as follows: Fr. Bergoglio advised them, once they left the Society of Jesus, to go to see the bishop of Morón, Miguel Raspanti, in whose diocese they might keep their priesthood and their lives, and he offered to send a favorable report so that they might be accepted. But Fathers Yorio and Jalics heard from the vicar and various priests of the diocese of Morón that Fr. Bergoglio’s letter to Bishop Raspanti contained accusations “sufficient to ensure that we should not continue exercising the priesthood.” Replying to Fr. Yorio, the provincial declared, “It’s not true. My report was favorable. The trouble is that Raspanti is an aged person who sometimes gets muddled.” Yet Bergoglio repeated his accusations to Bishop Raspanti in a further meeting that he had with him, as the latter himself revealed to another priest of Bajo Flores, Fr. Dourrón. Fr. Yorio therefore challenged Bergoglio again, and this time the provincial replied, “Raspanti says that his priests object to your coming into the diocese.”
The alternative was then proposed that Fathers Yorio and Jalics join a pastoral team in the archdiocese of Buenos Aires. The leader of the team put this to Archbishop Aramburu, whose answer was “Impossible. There are very grave accusations against them. I don’t even want to see them.” One of the priests of the team complained to the episcopal vicar in the Flores district, Fr. Serra, who replied, “The accusations come from the Provincial,” and he told Fr. Yorio that he was being deprived of his license to exercise the priesthood in the archdiocese because the provincial had told him that he was leaving the Society of Jesus.
When questioned about this, Fr. Bergoglio replied, “They didn’t need to take your license away. This is Aramburu’s doing. I am giving you a license to continue saying Mass in private, until you find a bishop.”
The final attempt to find a bishop to incardinate the two priests was made by the Rev. Eduardo González, who in May 1976 approached the archbishop of Santa Fe, Vicente Zazpe. The archbishop replied, “It is not possible to accept them because the Provincial says that he is dismissing them from the Society of Jesus.” Upon this, the pastoral team sent a letter of protest to Fr. Bergoglio, with copies to Archbishop Aramburu; Bishop Raspanti; and the nuncio, Pio Laghi, but they received no reply.
A few days later, Fathers Yorio and Jalics were kidnapped and tortured by the military forces. They were later released after the negotiation of an agreement between the government and the Church. The question then arose of getting them out of the country. Fr. Bergoglio, as Jesuit provincial, did not want to send them to Rome. Fr. Yorio was sheltered by a nun, Norma Gorriarán, until Fr. Bergoglio demanded that she tell him where Fr. Yorio was, ostensibly for the purpose of protecting him. Sister Gorriarán was not convinced and refused. Bergoglio, she related, “trembled with fury that an insignificant nun should stand up to him. He pointed his finger at me and said, ‘You are responsible for whatever risks Orlando runs, wherever he may be.’” Finally, the nuncio obtained papers for Fr. Yorio, and Fr. Bergoglio authorized payment for his journey to Rome.
On reaching Rome, Fr. Yorio heard from Fr. Gaviña, the secretary of the Jesuit general, the news that he had been dismissed from the Society of Jesus and also that the reason why he and Fr. Jalics had been captured by the military was that the Argentine government had been informed by their religious superiors that at least one of them was a guerrilla fighter. This information was provided by the Argentine ambassador, who confirmed it in writing.
As to Fr. Jalics, he declared that after his release from detention, Fr. Bergoglio opposed his remaining in Argentina and spoke with the bishops so they would not accept him as a priest in their dioceses. Fr. Jalics gave this account in later years, when Bergoglio had become a bishop and archbishop, and he noted that Bergoglio now made a practice of seeking him out and talking to him as part of the whitewashing operation he was perfecting at the time.
Information was also given to Verbitsky by the brother of Fr. Yorio, Rodolfo, who was able to tell the writer from his own knowledge that Fr. Bergoglio had personal contacts with the military regime. He recalled a meeting with the provincial, who told him he was about to receive a visit from the military, and after he left the house, he saw a car draw up outside the door and three officers get out of it. Rodolfo Yorio added that Fr. Bergoglio sometimes used these contacts to protect people: “I know people whom he helped. That shows his two faces and his closeness to the military authorities. His way of managing ambiguity is masterly. If they were killed he was rid of them, if they were saved he was the one who had saved them. That’s why there are people who consider him a saint and others who are terrified of him.”
As I began by saying, it is not my purpose to discuss whether Fr. Bergoglio did in fact betray Fathers Yorio and Jalics to the military regime. It is generally agreed that Verbitsky failed to prove his accusations, although neither were they conclusively disproved. What I am concerned with here is the picture of Bergoglio’s character that emerges from the above narrative. A politically motivated accusation that he collaborated with the military regime would be easy to invent, but it would be difficult to manufacture out of nothing the pervasive impression of duplicity and the charges and counter-charges of untruthfulness that mark the story told by Fathers Yorio and Jalics. Moreover, they correspond closely with the accounts of Bergoglio that come from other sources. The Church’s faithful are thus challenged to contemplate the possibility that they have as pope a figure who falls short of the standards of integrity that we have come to assume in that office, and who has conducted a careful and highly successful whitewashing campaign to present himself as a limpid spiritual figure, first to the Argentine public and then to the world as a whole.
Editor’s note: This article was written as an appendix to the foreign-language editions of The Dictator Pope. It is published here with the author’s permission.